View report page

The London County Council has apparently refused to deal with this area on two
grounds ; first, that it was not of general importance to London, and secondly, that it
was likely to be redeveloped like other property in the neighbourhood at no distant date.
As regards the first reason it seems to me that in clearing this area we would be
benefiting Ssouthwark as much as ourselves, and also South London generally by the
widening of Crosby Row, and that for this reason alone the London County Council
take the matter up. As regards the second reason, it is true that part of the
site is in the market, but the date of development is somewhat uncertain, and in any
case it refers to only about a third of the area. I understand the London County
Council are in agreement with my representation that the area is an insanitary one."
This report was finally considered by the Public Health Committee at their meeting on
May 30th, and, reporting to the Council at their meeting on June 6th, they state
" This matter has been before us on several occasions and we have viewed the area.
The procedure is regulated by sec. 73 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act.
1890.
Ihe Local Government Board upon having such a resolution (i.e. that of the
London County Council) submitted to them may appoint an Arbitrator and direct him
to hold a local inquiry and such Arbitrator shall hold such inquiry and report to the
Local Government Board as to whether, having regard to the size of the area, to the
number of houses to be dealt with, to the position, structure, and sanitary condition of
such houses, and of the neighbourhood thereof, and to the provisions of Part I. of this
Act, the case is either wholly or partially of any and what importance to the County
of London with power to such Arbitrator to report that in the event of the case being
dealt with under Part 11. of this Act, the London County Council ought to make a
contribution in respect of the expense of dealing with the case. The Local
Government Board, after considering the report of the Arbitrator, may, according as
to the Board seems just, decide that the case shall be dealt with either under Part II
of this Act, or under Part I. of this Act, and the Medical Officer of Health or other
proper officer shall forthwith make the representation necessary for proceedings, in
accordance with such decision."
It appears to us that the attitude taken up by the London County Council is not the
proper one contemplated by the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. We recommend—
That the Local Government Board be informed that this Council is of opinion
that the area in question is one of general importance to the County of London
and should be dealt with by the London County Council.
Our opinion is based upon the following reasons:—
" (1) The insanitary area contains 41 houses, but in addition it would be necessary
or advisable to acquire the houses in Crosby Row, together with three or four in
Snowsfields, abutting upon the area, in order to obtain proper frontages and carry out
a suitable rehousing scheme. These additional houses, although not unfit for human
habitation, are in a more or less insanitary condition, and require constant supervision
in order to prevent or remedy nuisances, etc.
(2) Owing to the considerable amount of heavy through vehicular traffic which
passes along Crosby Row from adjoining Boroughs, it would be necessary in any
rehousing scheme at this point to widen a portion of Crosby Bow and Snowsfields.
(3) The area in question is right on the border of this Borough and adjoining the
Borough of Southwark, bo that the latter Borough would practically reap as much
benefit as Bermondsey, if the area is dealt with under Part 11. of the Act, but without
mating the smallest contribution towards the extremely heavy cost, which would fall
upon Bermondsey.
(4) That this area, both from its geographical position, the number of houses
to be acquired, the necessity of purchasing additional property and the street
improvement requirements involved by the scheme, is essentially one of general
importance to the County of London within the meaning of the Statute. Although
the London County Council in the past may only have dealt with large areas, or
schemes, that, in itself, does not alter or modify what is the meaning and interpretation
of the Act. Sec. 72, by expressly directing that an official representation to the London
County Council under Part I. which relates to not more than 10 houses is to be
dealt with under Part 11., impliedly justifies the representation made to the London
County Council as to this particular area.
(5) This Borough has already had to bear the very heavy expense of clearing one
insanitary area and at the same time have had to contribute towards the cost of larger
schemes in other parts of London undertaken by the London County Council. This
hardship arises through a misconception as to the true meaning of the Act in applying
the sole test of size or number of houses for the purpose of arriving at an opinion as
to whether a representation is one of general importance to the County of London."
This was followed by some further correspondence, of which the following is the Public
Health Committee's report to the Council on September 19tb, 1905.
" On the 13th June, 1905, we reported fully to the Council in reference to an
official representation to the County Council made by this Council's Medical Officer
with respect to an insanitary area comprising Cusack Place, Gareth Place and Porlock